http://bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2011-09-11 02:53 am (UTC)

Wow. Okay. Well, first, this is a voter fraud investigation we're talking about. There's no rule saying you can't have more rigorous standards for identification than the vote itself did, because such a rule would be incredibly stupid. You can perform DNA testing if that's what it takes to prove fraud was committed.

Second, I think it's safe to say that cold-calling would be the worst, least effective way to investigate this crime or any other. If someone puts someone else's name on a registration form, there's nothing preventing them from putting their own phone number on it, then lying when someone calls asking for John Q. McGillicuddy.

Third, it's bizarre that you'd say it's the only way. Everyone who votes is required to sign their name at the polling place; off the top of my head, comparing those signatures to ones on file is one way to spot an obvious fake. Plus checking to see if those who voted are actually dead, or not residing in the state at the time of the election, or felons, etc. You suggested most of these yourself; it's odd that you'd now say phone calls are the only way to check these things out.


...Wait, I think I just got it. Are you leading up to telling me that gee, if depending upon people to tell the truth doesn't work for an investigation, why should we depend on it during the actual vote? LOL.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting